Talk:Travel Guide To Everett
"It is illegal to conceal your face with unnecessary garments such as Burkas.." 'Unnecessary' is being used in a bias way, you may see it as being a unnecessary, but to some Muslim women see it as being extremely essential. For Everett being a liberal country, this maybe one of its most backward and most offensive policies. --DevoutionUnity (talk) 12:56, June 14, 2013 (UTC) I agree. I always believed the Burka Ban to be one of the most unneccessary and xenophobic laws in use. Seems to be a result of Islamophobia in Everett really, especially when the women who wear burkas, choose to wear them instead of being forced to wear them. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 14:22, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :Go to Afghanistan during the Taliban and say that LOL "Choose to wear them?" Think again. And as this is his country, he can do whatever he wants with it. No room for PC garbage in a fictional setting, so put your liberal holier-than-thou hand down for a bit. ::: Issue is, this isn't Afghanistan, and the Taliban aren't in control anymore. And 99% of the time when overseas, women choose to wear burkas, and have even protested over the matter. Get your facts straight before your start something. And most of these "burka bans" take place in the Western world. Also, your going to have to learn how to use a more respectful tone now, I hold a position of authority, and given that this was a sensible discussion and not an argument, I do have the right to ban you for intimidating behaviour, which you have shown in the past. I'm not dealing with your nonsense anymore. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:17, June 14, 2013 (UTC) It's not that they choose to wear a burka. It's that it is forced by threat of lashings, beatings, stoning executions, beheadings or rape. In places like Saudi Arabia, refusal to wear a burka is signing your own death warrant. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 08:26, June 15, 2013 (UTC) : So women are being beaten, raped, and lashed in Everett and the Western World where they most often chose to wear a burka? Like I said, we're not talking about the Middle East, we're talking about your precious Everett and the West, the only place to have instituted the burka ban. I don't know how many new articles I've read about Muslim women protesting the ban in France and the United Kingdom, were they have a choice. Many women have been arrested for simply refusing to obey the law because they think its unreasonable, unfair, and racist. And this isn't me saying this, this is the women themselves that have problems with the burka ban. And your taking an issue out of context, and trying to impose it in an environment that no longer has the same repressive as the former. Now that they make the choice to wear them, and even demand the right, in a place where it brags about how much better it is than other nations for giving people the right to choose, and now your taking that away from them? How backwards is that? Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 10:58, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Actually Belgium, the Netherlands, France and other places have Burka-bans instated due to the amount of out of control Muslim rioting and terrorist attacks by Muslim immigrants into western Europe. As for Everett, the only reason Muslim women in free countries wear full veil Burkas is because their religious teachings and culture from their homelands teach that women are sinful, their bodies are evil and whores, that women are objects and property of men and that females are subhumans, hence the way Muslim women are treated globally and even here in the United States by radical sects. Honor killings, rapes, sexual abuse, child marriages to adults, pedophilia, etc. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 11:11, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Wow, I can't begin to tell you wear your opinion and hatred of Islam has clouded the truth about Islam. I don't know if you've ever read the Qur'an, but the burkas was seen as a way of protecting the honor and diginity of women. Nothing about whores or witches, just women whose physical beauity was to be hidden away given the widely accepted fact that some men see with their eyes and think with their penis. And given in a time where men were kidnap women for their beauty and rape them, the burka was seen as much of a protection than a prison. It wasn't until the radical teachings that emerged during the late Caliphates that enforcing certain aspects of Islam became so aggressive as to form the appearance of what you discribed. And honestly, you kill me with all that tagging on of problems that you think are widespread in Islam or any issue. Honor killings and child marriages aren't common in the Middle East, and pedophilia isn't tolerated, no matter how much you want it to be to discredit Islam. Rape and sexual abuse are execuable offenses, and there are many reports of this, as well as photos of one man being shot in the head for raping a child. You have a lot of issues with Islam that I can't understand. I like the religion, and I know enough about it to know that Muhammad provided many protections to women. In fact, your an avid "researcher", look up the way women were treated before the avvival of Islam. You'd be surprised at the rights afforded to women under a religion you despise. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 11:29, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :COOL STORY BRO Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:49, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Typing in all caps in an immature and condesending way doesn't make your point anymore convincing. Nor does linking me to disturbing three year old photos from a nation already known for its radicalism do anything to shock me into believing you. Especially given the fact that we're talking about the Western world, were the ban is the most prevalent. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:50, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::: Totally not a Western problem. (Look, it's not in CAPS because someone doesn't like CAPS lock) Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:43, June 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::: Huh. Old articles. Again. Nations of which last I checked were in the Western world. And all of them having nothing to do with the burqa ban. Pointing me toward articles that have nothing to do with the subject, or events that took place in Western nations, and are thus Western problems, still does not convince me that the burka ban is right. Heck, the fact that Super proved that Saudi women don't need to were burqas proves that you don't reseach material that disproves your point. For the love of God (or watever the heck you believe in), stay on point or stop trying to push your biased views. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 10:46, June 16, 2013 (UTC) Agree with Viva. Anyway, the burqa isn't even required in Saudi Arabia and Iran (which I think are the only countries that require the hijab), just the hijab (which covers the hair and neck). Islam's position on requiring it is to prevent women from being mistreated by men. I don't support burqa wearing or the treatment of women in conservative Islamic countries but it's silly to ban it. Btw, very glad that Rouhani won the Iranian presidential election, he's a moderate so we should be getting much more cooperation from Iran in the near future along with more freedom of expression and press there! :) —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:24, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::I just found out about the election. Hopefully the nuke program continues. I have my reasons. And I hope Iran develops according to the way Iranians want it, not our "preferred" way. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 17:45, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately (I think), the Iranian President is simply a puppet of the Supreme Leader, so I am not putting my heart on seeing a great reform in the spirit of women and children's rights in Iran. With that being said, I still prefer to see Tehran turned into a big parking lot for McDonald's. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:59, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :Sorry, but I think you and me disagree on that point. I'd very much like to Iran get a nuke, if not to wave it at Israel the way they wave their planes and threats at Iran, then just to stick it to the US and Europe. Also, on the point of the Supreme Leader, uh...duh? Everybody knows the President is a puppet, that's the scheme. False hope. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 20:04, June 15, 2013 (UTC) I couldn't care less who has nukes, since nobody will use them (since nobody will get away with it). My main concern is the status of human rights in Iran and elsewhere in the world. Every government which simply goes on violating people's natural rights has no legitimacy and deserves nothing but total eradication. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 20:37, June 15, 2013 (UTC) : Dude, you'd have to destroy my nation, your nation, and every other nation in the world. That's a pretty broad statement. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:00, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Then it's high time to start. People being content with their shitty situation is humiliating to the human race. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 21:23, June 15, 2013 (UTC) : Uh, well maybe they prefer it that way. Your statement sounds I lot like "I don't like the way you live, so I'm going to force to live the way I want you too." That belief caused the violent wars in Europe, imperialism throughout the world, the near destruction of African culture and nations, and the current U.S.-dominated world that is being drag into a cess-pool today. Those kinds of people aren't tolerated for long. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 21:42, June 15, 2013 (UTC) It's difficult to understand what people prefer if they do not have any freedom of choice. You cannot prefer anything until you have the freedom of preference. And, well, I support Western imperialism. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 21:46, June 15, 2013 (UTC) : Super, by saying that they can't choose if they don't have freedom of choice, you stating another far-reaching opinion. : For instance, let's say I'm from Tyranistan. I may not agree with my leaders, but they protect me, feed me, maintain the public facilities, and keep the rebels using "freedom of choice" as an excuse to start a war at bay. They school my children, keep my family safe, and often times allow me to a chance to join the government itself. I can live my life at home the way I want, and can enjoy my thoughts and opinions in the safety of my room. By and large, life is good. However, I have foreigners with a superiority complex telling me my life isn't good enough, and that I should think their way, no matter how hypocritical it is. They say since I can't disturb the peace by marching down the street, and that I'm oppressed because they don't understand or are just afraid of my culture or religion. They bomb nations that disagree with them, and fabricate lies about my way of life to build support for an invasion of my homeland. I can't fight them since they can kill me from their bedroom, so what do I do? : I join them. If not for my family then to gain a position of power in the new nation. Now I live in a nation where crime is rampant, corruption is rampant, and unemployment is rampant. The government that maintained security is gone, as well as the police who enforced the laws. Jobs are scant because with the new capitalist system in place, greed overrides compassion and duty to provide jobs. Corruption grips the government because the fear of punishment no longer worries them. It'll take decades for a new set of facilities to be established since all the others were gutted. Why? Because I let somebody else tell me what to think, what to say, and what to wear. I have the freedom to choose, just so long as its want the West wants me to choose. : Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:21, June 15, 2013 (UTC) What you're implying goes both ways. Let's say I am from Tyranistan. I may not agree with my leaders, but they allegedly protect me, feed me, maintain the public facilities, and keep the rebels who have ambitions in life at bay. They indoctrinate my children to believe in the father knows best state, and regularly disallow me to join government because I do not agree with the state ideology. I struggle living my life at home because my opinions conflict with that of the government, and I fear having my door knocked down because of that blog post I made (or maybe they don't allow me on the internet?). By and large, I am fed, but I am not happy. However, there is hope. Foreigners who share my ambitions to see a free society are telling me I have a valid belief system and that they will help me have it recognized, no matter how out of order it is in my country's society. I think that goes far enough. If there is one who wants these freedoms, then there is more than one. Just because the majority of the population of a country are content with having the government telling them exactly how to live, doesn't mean everyone is. That's the essence of freedom of choice. Besides, it's a natural right, so any government trying to suppress it is in fact outside of its jurisdiction. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:30, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Take me, for example. Imagine I was born in Apartheid South Africa. Are you telling me that I should have accepted the current order in the nation without question and just lived my, fed, safe, educated life? No. We strive toward freedom, until there is no more freedom left to strive for. People are free to live their cultures, as long as they consent to it, and by they, I mean the women and children as soon as they are mature enough as well. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:33, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :: Now with my Tyranistani hat off, a few points I'd like to make. American imperialism has cost Americans 15,000 dead soldiers, sons and daughters of Americans who either blindly supported two pointless wars, or disagreed with them but saw their children called off to die for two pointless wars. They accomplished nothing either. Iraq is worse than it was before, with more crime, more unemployment, and more enemies of the West. And Afghanistan is still a hole. Americans are tired for dying for somebody else. If the world wants change, it can do it by itself. I'm old enough to die for my country now. I have no desire to kill another human being because somebody doesn't want to fight their war themselves. Case in point, Syria. :: 90% of the Syrian people support Assad. This poll wasn't taken by the government or the rebel, but by Western agencies in Syria. If the people want the freedom to choose so much, why do they support Assad? Is it because they like their lives the way they are? Because the rebels are responsible for starting and destroying their nation? Because they know the West is trying to force their beliefs onto them, and want no part of their plot? Who knows. All I know is that Assad is going to win, and I hope he does. This is one of the few cases where the leader has more geniue support from the people than the rebels. And get this, they choose to support him. :: I think freedom of choice is nice and all, but there has to be a limit. Sooner or later, your going to see people wanting the choice to do some of the most rediculous things imaginable, and I don't believe for a second the government is not going cave in. I can say for a certainty, that most, not all, but most Americans don't want to fight another pointless war to "improve" the lives of others while their own waste away. Our bridges, power grids, and schooling systems are failing for what reason? We spend more money helping others instead of helping ourselves. Our economy is in a recession for what reason? Because we waged two insanely expensive wars that failed, and spent billions on an inflated military that is shrinking. My people don't want to fight another war, so if somebody else wants to change something, they can do it themselves. I've seen to many stories about Americans dying to support other nations while their own collapses under the weight of the world's inability to support itself. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:34, June 15, 2013 (UTC) It was your government that decided to get involved. I don't make choices for Americans yet, so I can't help you're involved in wars. All I can say is that I support Western imperialism, and I do. It's the only route beyond these idiotic concepts of borders and sovereignty. Sooner or later; long after me and my entire bloodline are dead, there won't be nations left, and the Earth will finally be 'united' under a relatively homogeneous order. That's the future; it's the way to the stars. We need to strive toward that instead of worrying about preserving cultures. I also disagree with your majoritarian outlook; in that if 90% of people support Assad, screw the other 10%. No. If that 10% always had the freedom of secede, then I would have agreed with you, but they obviously don't. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC) My government made the choose to go to war. They lied to the people, lied to the world, and lied to themselves to sleep at night. This is common knowledge. Everybody knows the invasion of Iraq was built on lies. The concept of nations, though stupid, exists and serves a purpose today. As a Chrisitian, you and I already know what future exists for the world (peace, happiness, so on and so on), so that we have an agreement upon. However, I like my culture, as do many billions, so I don't believe that culture will ever be eradicated for humanity. On the matter of the Assad support, that 10% of people started a war that killed thousands of men, women, and children over selfish beliefs and the idea that their opinion was better than that of others. If they had an issue with the rest of the people why bring war upon everyone just so you and one out of ten people could do what you wanted. The KKK wants all non-white Protestant Americans out of their country. By your logic, they should have everyone else submit to that beliefs. The Taliban wants to force radical Islam on everyone in the world. By that logic, they have that right. They have the freedom to choose their way of life, and thus have the right to secede or whatever. Once again, your making very broad statements, and trust me, this isn't an attack on your opinion. I believe in a perfect world, everyone would live where they felt most comfortable. You homosexuality and drugs? Go here. You like Nazis? Go here. Want a white utopia? Go here and enjoy the pool. Forcing an opinion on someone is cruel and even worse than than the one replaced, as you are now indoctrinating others to adhere to the belief you want, not what they want. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:51, June 15, 2013 (UTC) I don't see it that way. Choice is a fundamental part of human life. It's not an ideology. I want people to have a right to choose how they live their own lives. Simple. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:59, June 15, 2013 (UTC) I suppose. Its a difficult subject to talk about, but I'd rather let it run its course than try to force it into my favor. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:31, June 15, 2013 (UTC) Well, I'd like to put in that I doubt 90% of people in Syria support Assad, because the other 10% would not have been able to garner as many changing-of-sides from the government if they had had that little support. And besides, 85% of statistics are made up on the spot (or was it 86%? :P). I also agree with Warmonkey in that people have a right to choose how they live, can't say I agree with Viva there. And lastly, back onto the topic, Warmonkey is technically arguing your original point that people should be able to choose to wear the burqa, Viva. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:34, June 16, 2013 (UTC) : I never said they couldn't choose how to live, but that there need to be limits and not a small group of people telling 99% of the people to conform to their lifestyle because they have too. Its unfair and its effectively minority rule in the form of surpressing one's opinions for a small group's benefit. As for the burqa, that's what I said over and over again. I said that they already have the right to choose given they already live in nations that allow them to do so. The West, also the only place with official burqa bans. So he was already arguing a point I had already made. I said choice, he said choose. Same thing. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:56, June 16, 2013 (UTC) Well the facts don't lie. That poll was big news, big enough to make it on Reuters, BBC, and NYTimes. Big enough that the President, on the advice of Clinton, said he'd ignore it since he wanted to go in despite the fact the Syrians didn't like the rebels. So you can't really deny something that was big enough to attract the attention of world leaders, especially since many of them thought the people supported the rebels. I find it sad that people are ready to believe that civilians will support "good guys" (according to the media), and not the "bad guys" (according to the media). People are ready to believe that the Syrians hate Assad, but with the truth comes out, now there's a problem (since it means most people have been wrong). Besides, most of those people hate the rebels because their worse than the government, which says a lot. I mean, we hear about the sarin gas threats, government murders, and et cetera, but never about the rebels shooting kids, killing families who refuse to join them, or Syrians husbands killing their Russians wives for supporting Assad (its on the news). And then when they do talk about it, they deflect. "Oh its a radical battalion. They don't have much support for the FSA." Or, "Oh that commander isn't Syrian, he's from another nation." And, "Well they aren't apart of the FSA, but their apart of another group." They try to hide the truth and displace facts, or the media simply refuses to report it less they lose the public's support for the rebels. No side is better, yet the people decided that apparently, Assad is much better than the uncertain leaders of the "Free Syrian Army". Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:47, June 16, 2013 (UTC)